I have read and actually reread this thread three times and my head hurts.
I believe that the rule as rewritten added a bunch of ambigutity to this mess.
Here's my conclusion, the rule writers screwed up. They tried to list exceptions by making parenthetical statements and they missed the point. There used to be three clear exceptions. They just muddied the waters..
if you look at the rule without the parentheical defensive player, or throw-in, or jump call) the whole rule makes more sense!
From the rule book" A player from the team not in control may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."
1) since there is no team control on a thow-in,( I am not worried about who is offensive or defensive player here!) a player can catch the ball from front court and land back court. The new case book play just clarifies that on the throw-in, the exception ends when the throw-in ends. Makes sense since this is supposed to be throw-in exception. What we have to remember is that control is esatblished when the ball is caught!
I believe this created an unintended extrapolation that might allow the Team B (read this defensive player) to catch a deflected ball on a throwin from his front court and land back court and it be a violation I dont think that the NFHS wanted us to penalize a "defensive team" but it does make a consistent scenario
Ball is now in play and there is no team controlBY either team, regular backcourt rules apply. If the team control is now established in FC and ball goes BC and team is first to touch it, it is a BC violation.
just like any other loose ball play where there is no control and a team secures control with both feet off theground. (read that the long shot scenario)
2) The jump ball exception is a no brainer
3) the normal defensive exception is no brainer, defense is not in control by definition.
4) If the parenthticals are considered conclusive and defining, then on a loose ball after a shot if a player jumps from their backcourt, secures the ball and goes backcourt then it is a violation.
Personally, I would just as soon see the parentheticals removed and just let any team when the ball is not in control of either team catch the ball with both feet off the floor and let them come down. I really think it would be more consistent across the board. But I will have to wait for that one